--- In World-Electric-Multiple-
Unit@yahoogroups.com, "jeremygharrison" <jeremygharrison@y...> wrote:
> Prompted by some discussion on World-Electric-Loco...
>
> Have any emu's (railcars) ever been built to take power from third
> rail/overhead where present, but then proceed on battery power over
> non-electrified lines?
>
> Would such a unit be practicable?
>
> Jeremy

British Rail (SR) built a batch of ten battery/third rail Motor
Luggage Van in the 1960's or so.  They generally operated on
electrified tracks, but the batteries were good for 20minutes slow
speed running or so, so they could venture into unelectrified yards,
ports etc. to pick up and drop off ordinary unpowered vans etc.

They were withdrawn quite recently - late nineties I think, and at
least one is preserved with the intention of keeping it in running
order.  Some of the others that weren't in such good condition have
become stores vans etc. for preservation societies.

Can't think of any others in the UK,

CIE (Eire) had a couple of articulated, battery powered units, but
these could only recharge at "shore supplies", ie while stationary,
so don't really fit your question, though I suspect that there would
have been little difficulty equiping them with collection and battery
charging gear if CIE has possessed any suitable low voltage
electrification.

Rgds,

Jonathan

I was aware of the SR MLVs - AIUI these were built with batteries basically to
work on to unelectrified quayside lines, i.e. with (very) limited oomph (power +
endurance)on batteries (and many of the early BR ac emus - classes AM2=302 -
AM9=309 ?? - had batteries for shunting in depots).
And as you say the Drumm units in Ireland/Eire (which I would describe as GSR -
they pre-dated CIE) were static supply only, as were the German ETAs...
What I had in mind was something with more oomph (than the MLVs) - perhaps for
the SR or some other system with a substantial amount of electrification - which
could work as 'straight' electrics on electrified lines (and simulataneously re-
charging), but on batteries (with not much lower performance) over a
non-electrified 'gap' of up to perhaps 150 km/100 miles...  (comparable to the
Drumm/ETA units?)
Jeremy
  hefelump2000 <jonathan@...> wrote:--- In
World-Electric-Multiple-
Unit@yahoogroups.com, "jeremygharrison" <jeremygharrison@y...> wrote:
> Prompted by some discussion on World-Electric-Loco...
>
> Have any emu's (railcars) ever been built to take power from third
> rail/overhead where present, but then proceed on battery power over
> non-electrified lines?
>
> Would such a unit be practicable?
>
> Jeremy

British Rail (SR) built a batch of ten battery/third rail Motor
Luggage Van in the 1960's or so.  They generally operated on
electrified tracks, but the batteries were good for 20minutes slow
speed running or so, so they could venture into unelectrified yards,
ports etc. to pick up and drop off ordinary unpowered vans etc.

They were withdrawn quite recently - late nineties I think, and at
least one is preserved with the intention of keeping it in running
order.  Some of the others that weren't in such good condition have
become stores vans etc. for preservation societies.

Can't think of any others in the UK,

CIE (Eire) had a couple of articulated, battery powered units, but
these could only recharge at "shore supplies", ie while stationary,
so don't really fit your question, though I suspect that there would
have been little difficulty equiping them with collection and battery
charging gear if CIE has possessed any suitable low voltage
electrification.

Rgds,

Jonathan


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
World-Electric-Multiple-Unit-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jeremy Harrison <jeremygharrison@...> schrieb:
> What I had in mind was something with more oomph (than the MLVs) -
> perhaps for the SR or some other system with a substantial amount
> of electrification - which could work as 'straight' electrics on
> electrified lines (and simulataneously re- charging), but on
> batteries (with not much lower performance) over a non-electrified
> 'gap' of up to perhaps 150 km/100 miles...  (comparable to the
> Drumm/ETA units?)

Not a technical problem, but a financial ...
(as I said in an earlier posting)

Markus, Gürbetal

Hi!

I have just started the modern railway technology group.  Feel free
to discuss any technical features in modern railways, the present and
future developments in electric traction and mass transport.

You are welcomed to join this group by visiting
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/modernrailtech/

Mark

If a car without buffers derails in a tunnel with limited side
clearance, how can it be lifted and how can thewheels be put back
onto the track?

Mark

--- Mark Farnell <farnell_mark@...> wrote:

> If a car without buffers derails in a tunnel with limited side
> clearance, how can it be lifted and how can thewheels be put back
> onto the track?

Manually, using high powered Jacks/Lifts/Chains/Ropes/Supports....and of
course..
enough men..!!

At least, this was how it was done, when a similar incident happenned in India,
and that too in a 'Curved Tunnel'...

ISA

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
        visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com

--- In World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com, "IS.ANAND"
<isawcm5@y...> wrote:
>  --- Mark Farnell <farnell_mark@h...> wrote:
>
> > If a car without buffers derails in a tunnel with limited side
> > clearance, how can it be lifted and how can thewheels be put back
> > onto the track?
>
> Manually, using high powered
Jacks/Lifts/Chains/Ropes/Supports....and of course..
> enough men..!!
>
> At least, this was how it was done, when a similar incident
happenned in India,
> and that too in a 'Curved Tunnel'...
>
> ISA
There's a whole art for to doing this, particularly using jacks and
slewing gear.  Its worth remembering that setting up a crane takes
quite a while, even if the derailment is outside a tunnel (somewhere
more convenient like a yard), so it was almost a point of honour
(certainly in the UK) for a breakdown crew to avoid use of the crane
unless it was actually necessary, and use jacks etc. in prefernce for
minor incidents.  So they'd be well practiced in the appropriate
techniques anyway.

Rgds,

Jonathan

PS : Not sure I understand the comment about buffers - how do they
change the situation when a vehicle is derailed in a tunnel (under a
bridge etc.)?

Mark Farnell <farnell_mark@...> schrieb:
> If a car without buffers derails in a tunnel with limited side
> clearance, how can it be lifted and how can thewheels be put back
> onto the track?

Why should it be different from lifiting a vehicle *with* buffers?

Markus, Gürbetal

--- Markus <guerbetaler@...> wrote: >

> Why should it be different from lifiting a vehicle *with* buffers?

Certainly Markus,

Because, the advantage of having to thro Chains/Ropes, or using the 'buffers'
as a Handle is lost..

ISA

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
        visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com

IS.ANAND <isawcm5@...> schrieb:
> --- Markus guerbetaler@...> wrote:
> > Why should it be different from lifiting a vehicle *with* buffers?
>
> Because, the advantage of having to thro Chains/Ropes, or using the
> 'buffers' as a Handle is lost..

Construction of buffers allows forces in horizontal direction, you
have to be very prudent with vertical forces. To lift a carbody there
are specially marked points where you may do this. But certainly
not at the buffers! Hey, that's not model railway ...

Markus, Gürbetal

--- Markus <guerbetaler@...> wrote:

> To lift a carbody there are specially marked points where you may do this. But
certainly not at the buffers! Hey, that's not model railway ...

True, but resorted to...-:)))))))

ISA

________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
        visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com

In tunnels, how much extra clearance is necessary for 3kV DC
electrification system than 1.5kV electrification system? If the
difference in required clearance is not big, wouldn't it be better to
adopt the 3kV system since the voltage rating of the IGBTs used are
now much higher (>3kV)? so that their voltage capability can be fully
used.

Mark

Mark Farnell <farnell_mark@...> schrieb:
> In tunnels, how much extra clearance is necessary for 3kV DC
> electrification system than 1.5kV electrification system?

As a general rule: 1 cm per 1000 V

> If the difference in required clearance is not big,
> wouldn't it be better to adopt the 3kV system since
> the voltage rating of the IGBTs used are
> now much higher (>3kV)? so that their voltage capability can be
> fully used.

Yes, but waht to do with the older material? Throw away?

Markus, Gürbetal

--- In World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com, "Markus"
<guerbetaler@y...> wrote:
> Mark Farnell <farnell_mark@h...> schrieb:
> > In tunnels, how much extra clearance is necessary for 3kV DC
> > electrification system than 1.5kV electrification system?
>
> As a general rule: 1 cm per 1000 V
>
> > If the difference in required clearance is not big,
> > wouldn't it be better to adopt the 3kV system since
> > the voltage rating of the IGBTs used are
> > now much higher (>3kV)? so that their voltage capability can be
> > fully used.
>
> Yes, but waht to do with the older material? Throw away?
>
> Markus, Gürbetal

NO!  I meant when the engineers decide which system to use in an
isolated, new subway system.

Also, if a multi-system locomotive is designed to receive 3kV and
1.5kV, usually will the engineers border to add an extra step-down or
step up DC chopper to accomodate this requirement, or do they just
derate the loco by 50% when it runs in 1.5kV section?

Mark

----- Original Message -----
    Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:15:14 +0200
    From: "Markus" <guerbetaler@...>
Subject: Re: 3kV vs 1.5kV

Mark Farnell <farnell_mark@...> schrieb:
> In tunnels, how much extra clearance is necessary for 3kV DC
> electrification system than 1.5kV electrification system?

As a general rule: 1 cm per 1000 V

> If the difference in required clearance is not big,
> wouldn't it be better to adopt the 3kV system since
> the voltage rating of the IGBTs used are
> now much higher (>3kV)? so that their voltage capability can be
> fully used.

Yes, but waht to do with the older material? Throw away?

Markus, Gürbetal



________________________________________________________________________
Markus,

Your 1cm per 1000V sounds like a theoretical value for dry clean air, with
no ionized gasses present.

I do not have European rail standards here at home, but I would expect that
there would be maybe 50mm difference in clearance standards.  The relevant
value is called "passing clearance"

For some railways, there is little difference between 3kVdc and 25kVac for
standard clearances.  This is mainly due to the  fact that dc flashovers
will not self extinguish until the two surfaces are physically seperated or
destroyed.  I know of incorrectly spaced section insulators, on a 1500Vdc
system, continuing to arc until the adjacent pieces burned away far enough,
that the gap increased and the arc went out.  In the meantime the sleepers
on the track below would be set on fire by the falling molten copper.

Ron

Ron Bennell <rbennell@...> schrieb:
> Your 1cm per 1000V sounds like a theoretical value for dry clean
> air, with no ionized gasses present.

No, but I admit, it is for ac. Didn't check the rules for dc but
will do that...

Markus, Gürbetal

--- In World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com, "Markus"
<guerbetaler@y...> wrote:
> Ron Bennell <rbennell@t...> schrieb:
> > Your 1cm per 1000V sounds like a theoretical value for dry clean
> > air, with no ionized gasses present.
>
> No, but I admit, it is for ac. Didn't check the rules for dc but
> will do that...

Swiss rules say:

110 mm for 11 kV ac
150 mm for 15 kv ac
250 mm for 25 kV ac
35 mm for up to 1.5 kV dc
50 mm for more than 1.5 kV dc

Markus, Gürbetal

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
World-Electric-Multiple-Unit group:

At the moment, this group caters for
electric multiple units only.  Are you
in favour of changing the scope (and
renaming the group) to cover other
types of multiple units?  (eg diesel,
gas turbine, etc. etc.)

   o Yes, I am in favour of the proposed change to include non-electric multiple
units
   o I am not interested in non-electric multiple units, but would remain a
member if the scope of the group is increased.
   o I am against the proposed change, and will probably leave the group if it is
carried out


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/World-Electric-Multiple-Unit/surveys?id=643285

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com <World-Electric-Multiple-
Unit@yahoogroups.com> schrieb:
>  Are you in favour of changing the scope
> (and renaming the group)

I just want to signal that renaming a group means the
same as starting a new group. The existing archiv is
not transferred.

--
Markus, Gürbetal
Switzerland rail news and discussion at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SwissRail
Schweizer Bahn-Nachrichten und Diskussion:
http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/BahnCH

--- In World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com, "Markus"
<guerbetaler@y...> wrote:
> World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com <World-Electric-
Multiple-
> Unit@yahoogroups.com> schrieb:
> >  Are you in favour of changing the scope
> > (and renaming the group)
>
> I just want to signal that renaming a group means the
> same as starting a new group. The existing archiv is
> not transferred.
>
> --
> Markus, Gürbetal

Duly noted, thanks, Markus.  If people are in favour of the general
idea, I'll have a look into the practicalities - with only 50 or so
messages, they could be put in the "new" archive as txt files or
similar, perhaps..

Jonathan

Let's consider a electromagnetic track brake that works by eddy
current as well as a skid brake (by the electromagnetic attraction
force between the brake and the track) and it is installed in every
bogie in a train.

Obviously, the EM brakes reduce the braking distance considerably at
high speed because at high speed, the adhesion factor of the wheels
decrease and therefore the braking force exerted by the wheels
decrease.  However, the EM brakes work independently from the wheel
adhesion and give extra braking force.

However at low speed, how much braking distance can EM brakes
decrease?  Is it a good idea to make it compulsary for all normal
speed rolling stocks, or at least the streetcars, to equip all bogies
with EM brakes?

Mark

Hi!

Let's consider the knuckle couplers.  Its knuckle is shaped so that
the couplers can disengage with the locking pin of only ONE of the
couplers is lifted while the other coupler is still in the locking
position.

Then the knuckle couplers are also designed so that an open coupler
can couple to a closed coupler without any troubles.

However if a careless driver attempt to couple two cars, BOTH with
their couplers on the CLOSED position, wouldn't the driver cause
serious damages to the couplers?

In order to avoid this from happening on trains that have Type H
Tightlock Knuckle Couplers with automatic electrical connections,
would it be a good idea to design the coupler so that it will
automatically lift its locking pin and let the spring to return the
knuckle to its open position when its electrical / pneumatic
connections are lost (as a result of the cars being uncoupled from
the OPPOSITE side)?

Cheers,
Mark

let's think about the guidance system of the bogie frame
relative to the car body. In bolsterless EMU bogies, monolink or Z-
link are used to transmit traction/braking forces from the bogie to
the car body. Both of them allow limited transverse play (limited by
lateral rubber bumps on the bogie frame) to accomodate track
irregularities and avoid excessive track forces when cornering.
Z-link is essentially the Watt's linkage system which allows the
centre (the pivot) to travel sideways WITHOUT longirtudinal
displacement. However in the monolink arrangment, given the length
of the link and the extremely small transverse play involved, the
pivot would only have microscopic longitudinal displacement.

Also, monolink has only one sturdy link with two large joints at both
of its ends, one to the transom of the bogie and the other to the
pivot of the car body. It is very simple, cheap, sturdy and easy to
maintain. However the Z link has 4 small joints plus the oivot,
totalling 5 joints. The Z-link contains far too many small parts
which are too expensive, too delicate and too difficult to maintain.

Therefore how come there are still so many bolsterless bogies
equipped with Z-link?

The first ac electrifications were in the years 1903 - 1905.
I can identfiy the following electrifications of this period:

14 Aug 1903-1906 6'000 ~ 25 Hz KPEV/UEG
    Berlin-Niederschöneweide - Spindlersfeld (DE)

1 Aug 1904-1983 2'500 ~ 42 Hz STB
    Innsbruck - Fulpmes (AT)

16 Jan 1905-1905 15'000 ~ 50 Hz MFO/SBB
    Zürich Seebach - Zürich Affoltern (CH)
11 Nov 1905-3 Jul 1909 15'000 ~ 15 Hz MFO/SBB
    Zürich Seebach - Zürich Affoltern (1906/07 extended to Wettingen)

24 Jan 1905-1954 5'500 ~ 16 Hz LAG/DB
    Murnau - Oberammergau (DE)

1905-191? ???? ~ 25 Hz SJ
    Tomteboda - Vàrtan/Stockholm (6 km) (SE)

16 Apr 1905-1921 600 ~ 40 Hz SNCV (tram)
    Lignes du Borinage (Hainaut) Cap.127 (BE)

1904-1924 3'300 ~ 25 Hz (interurban)
    170 km Indianapolis and Cincinnati Trac Co (US)
1905-1937/42 3'300 ~ ?? Hz (interurban)
     67 km San Francisco Napa & Calistoga Ry (US)
1905-1911 3'300 ~ ?? Hz (interurban)
    35 km Warren & Jamestown Ry (US)
1905-1923 3'300 ~ ?? Hz (interurban)
    25 km Altanta Northern Trac Co (US)
1905-1915 3'300 ~ 25 Hz (interurban)
    29 km Bloomington Pontiac & Joliet Elect (US)

Is this list complete for the years 1903-1905?
Who can fill in more exact data?

Markus, Gürbetal

1st delivery:
MM 501-542, from 1941 701-742, Frichs 158-199/1933-34
FM 12501-12521 (trailers), 1941-50 801-821, from 1950 861-881, Scandia 1933

2nd delivery:
MM 543-562, from 1941 743-762, Frichs 230-249/1935
FM 12522-12531 (trailers), 1941-50 822-831, from 1950 882-891, Scandia 1935
FML 12532-12554 (trailers), from 1941 FL 832-844, 901-910 (832 re# 892 in
1950), Scandia 1936, 833-844, 901-910 reb. to FS 911-922, 901-910 in 1941-42
FS 12493-12500, from 1941 992-999, Scandia 1936, reb. with carbodies of
steel in 1962-63 (Scandia 24479-24486)

3rd delivery:
MM 763-778, Frichs 377-392/1949-1950
FS 976-991, Scandia 19859-19874/1949 (trailers)

4th delivery:
MM 779-802, Frichs 423-446/1952-53
FS 952-975, Scandia 20716-20739/1952 (trailers)

5th delivery:
MM 803-819, Frichs 787-803/1962
FS 935-951, Scandia 23749-23765/1961-62 (trailers)

FS were control trailers (styrevogne)

totals, power cars:
MM 42+20+16+24+17 = 119
trailers:
FL (23 rebuilts)
FM 21+10 (trailers) = 31
FML 23 (trailers) = 23
FS 8+17+24+16 = 65 (+ 22 rebuilts from FL, orig FML)

Cars of the 1930s had 4x163hp (123kW) EE traction motors
Cars of 1949-1962 had 4x180hp (132kW) EE traction motors

From 1935 some of the traction motors were made by Danish firms A/S Titan
and Thomas B. Thrige, but they were of the EE model.

Eljas Pölhö


> From: Martin Baumann
> Reply-To: World-Electric-Loco@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:44:30 +0000 (GMT)
> To: <world-electric-loco@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [World-Electric-Loco] DSB early EMU cars  ...
>
> DSB early EMU cars            How many were built and how were they numbered?
> Did they all have EE traction motor? I apologise for posting here but the EMU
> group is dormant

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the World-Electric-Multiple-Unit
group.

   File        : /Peenemunde.jpg
   Uploaded by : martinbaumann112 <all@...>
   Description : Picture from the History Channel showing a damaged Peenemunde
EMU set after an RAF air raid in 1943. Some of these sets later ran on the
Berlin S Bahn

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/World-Electric-Multiple-Unit/files/Peenemunde.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

martinbaumann112 <all@...>

How many of these sets are on order in total?

I am just dreaming Siemens putting the ICE-T trainset onto 3'6" gauge
bogies and using power conversion units which can receive 3kVDC and
25kVAC.  Since the motor is on the carbody and torque is transferred
to the axle via a longitudinal shaft.  Therefore dimensioning would be
a trivial problem.  The train will still travel at 200km/h and tilt at
8 degrees as in the standard gauge version.

How feasible is this project and how likely they will put up such an EMU?

Mark

Have you seen the Queensland Rail electric tilt trains.  They run on 3'-6", are
25kVac, have active tilt, can run at 160km/h, and have been do so for about 5
years.  They have been tested unmodifed up to 210k/m

Cheers
Ron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Mark Farnell
   To: World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:30 AM
   Subject: [World-Electric-Multiple-Unit] possibilities of ICE-T in South Africa


   I am just dreaming Siemens putting the ICE-T trainset onto 3'6" gauge
   bogies and using power conversion units which can receive 3kVDC and
   25kVAC.  Since the motor is on the carbody and torque is transferred
   to the axle via a longitudinal shaft.  Therefore dimensioning would be
   a trivial problem.  The train will still travel at 200km/h and tilt at
   8 degrees as in the standard gauge version.

   How feasible is this project and how likely they will put up such an EMU?

   Mark





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

     a..  Visit your group "World-Electric-Multiple-Unit" on the web.

     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      World-Electric-Multiple-Unit-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course I know!!  However I just wonder how easy it would be for
German firms such as Siemens and Bombardier to file competitive
proposals / biddings for rolling stocks if they just fit their
existing products onto 3'6" bogies.  This would minimize redesign
works provided if the structural gauge of the existing products match
the requirement of the customer.  Electrical supplies are now modular
and therefore not a problem.  In this way, the costs of redesigning or
setting up a dedicated prodution line is avoided or at least minimized.

Mark

--- In World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Bennell"
<rbennell@a...> wrote:
> Have you seen the Queensland Rail electric tilt trains.  They run on
3'-6", are 25kVac, have active tilt, can run at 160km/h, and have been
do so for about 5 years.  They have been tested unmodifed up to 210k/m
>
> Cheers
> Ron
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Mark Farnell
>   To: World-Electric-Multiple-Unit@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 11:30 AM
>   Subject: [World-Electric-Multiple-Unit] possibilities of ICE-T in
South Africa
>
>
>   I am just dreaming Siemens putting the ICE-T trainset onto 3'6" gauge
>   bogies and using power conversion units which can receive 3kVDC and
>   25kVAC.  Since the motor is on the carbody and torque is transferred
>   to the axle via a longitudinal shaft.  Therefore dimensioning would be
>   a trivial problem.  The train will still travel at 200km/h and tilt at
>   8 degrees as in the standard gauge version.
>
>   How feasible is this project and how likely they will put up such
an EMU?
>
>   Mark
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     a..  Visit your group "World-Electric-Multiple-Unit" on the web.
>
>     b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>      World-Electric-Multiple-Unit-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>     c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]